Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Incomplete Election?


Guest MICHELLE

Recommended Posts

At the annual meeting, a member is elected to two positions, but can only hold one, according to the bylaws. The member chooses to not take either position. Do the positions go to the next people with the highest number of votes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the office never goes to the person who comes in second unless your have a bylaw provision to the contrary.  You have an incomplete election and vote again until you have a winner.

 

Note:  If the member had previously consented to one of the offices to which he was elected, then his election is final.  He may resign, but he has been elected.   He may decline the election to an office only when he had not previously consented to serve. 

 

See RONR p. 444 ll. 17-27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note:  If the member had previously consented to one of the offices to which he was elected, then his election is final.  He may resign, but he has been elected.   He may decline the election to an office only when he had not previously consented to serve. 

 

If the candidate is present he may decline whether he previously agreed to serve or not. It's "automatic" only if he agreed to serve and he's absent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow up question:

Considering the fact that a mistake was made, the person elected to the two positions was given time to think about which position they wanted, then decided to take none. Would we have to go back to our orinal election process? ie, open nominations for 10 days? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the fact that a mistake was made, the person elected to the two positions was given time to think about which position they wanted, then decided to take none. Would we have to go back to our orinal election process? ie, open nominations for 10 days? 

 

Well, I'm not sure a mistake was made (unless the winning candidate had previously indicated a willingness to serve, in either office, and upon being notified of his election, did not immediately decline).

 

In any event. you don't need to start from scratch, e.g. give notice and/or re-open nominations, but it's probably a good idea to do both. Well, at least the first one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michelle Ricco Jonas

The individual did make an indication that they would accept one or the other and then ultimately decided not to accept either of them.

 

A question that I have and wanted to discuss with the Board but will ask here for some clarity as well, currently in our by-laws under the section of "Nominations" - the outline of how nominations will be conducted are outlined and then the last paragraph under this section reads:

 

"In the event of a board vacancy, the responsibilities of that position will be assumed by the current board members until the vacancy is filled."

 

Under the terms section - Vacancies in any office may be filled for the balance of the term thereof, by the executive committee.

 

That was why there was some questions as to whether one or both were incomplete or vacant....nothing was decided or set in stone.  Sections of the By-Laws were simply pointed out to explore and discuss because in Section 4 Rules of Order states:  Robert's Rules of Order (most current edition) shall govern the proceedings of all meetings except where said rules conflict with the By-Laws of FOAL in which case the By-Laws shall take precedence. 

 

I was uncertain given the language we had under the "Nomination" section and "Terms" section overruled the Robert's Rules of Order makeing the voting an Incomplete Vote vs a Vacancy?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Again Thank you for your Time.

 

Michelle Ricco Jonas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was uncertain given the language we had under the "Nomination" section and "Terms" section overruled the Robert's Rules of Order makeing the voting an Incomplete Vote vs a Vacancy?

 

This is not a mid-term vacancy. This is an incomplete (annual) election. 

 

But if I understand correctly, the person who was elected to two positions eventually accepted one and then, some time later (minutes? hours? days?), changed his mind. That would mean he was elected and then resigned, thereby creating a "mid-term" vacancy. So the executive committee can fill the vacancy but the election needs to be completed (by the general membership) for the other office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The individual did make an indication that they would accept one or the other and then ultimately decided not to accept either of them.

 

A question that I have and wanted to discuss with the Board but will ask here for some clarity as well, currently in our by-laws under the section of "Nominations" - the outline of how nominations will be conducted are outlined and then the last paragraph under this section reads:

 

"In the event of a board vacancy, the responsibilities of that position will be assumed by the current board members until the vacancy is filled."

 

Under the terms section - Vacancies in any office may be filled for the balance of the term thereof, by the executive committee.

 

That was why there was some questions as to whether one or both were incomplete or vacant....nothing was decided or set in stone.  Sections of the By-Laws were simply pointed out to explore and discuss because in Section 4 Rules of Order states:  Robert's Rules of Order (most current edition) shall govern the proceedings of all meetings except where said rules conflict with the By-Laws of FOAL in which case the By-Laws shall take precedence. 

 

I was uncertain given the language we had under the "Nomination" section and "Terms" section overruled the Robert's Rules of Order makeing the voting an Incomplete Vote vs a Vacancy?

 

Any thoughts?

It seems that at least one position is an incomplete election and a vacancy. For the position which was immediately declined, this is an incomplete election. It must be completed by the membership. Nonetheless, there is still a vacancy, and if the membership will not meet for some time, the board could appoint someone to fill the vacancy... but this appointment would be effective only until the election can be completed.

In the other situation, if the position was accepted after the election, the election became complete, and the person later resigned. This is therefore a vacancy. If the position was accepted before the election, but then immediately declined at the time of the election, see above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michelle R J

Thank you

This is very complex....the person intended to accept one of the two positions....but actually did not accept either in the end.

 

So based on what I have read here and in RR - it would be incomplete since they never actually accepted either only comtemplated and said they would pick one.

 

My concern/question was the language in our bylaws under nominations and because it is in that section whether it takes precedence over RR? 

 

Nomintations happens....

Voting happens....

If there is a vacancy then due to no one being voted in....

"In the event of a board vacancy, the responsibilities of that position will be assumed by the current board members until the vacancy is filled.".....but there is nothing else in this section that describes how the position will be filled accept in another section of the bylaws that talks about TERMS --> Vacancies in any office may be filled for the balance of the term thereof, by the executive committee.

 

So the way our by-laws are currently written do they take precedence over RR (aka. vacant position).

 

I am only seeking clarity as these are questions that have come up and an area of the by-laws that needs to be clarified in the future so that if were to happen again there is clear direction of what needs to happen.

 

Thank you.

MRJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bylaws always supersede RONR, but that does not change the fact that failing to elect someone does NOT create a vacancy. It just means you failed to complete the election, and must still do so.

A vacancy is created when someone is serving in an office and, before the term ends, vacates that office, by resignation, removal, death, of whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a vacancy then due to no one being voted in....

"In the event of a board vacancy, the responsibilities of that position will be assumed by the current board members until the vacancy is filled.".....but there is nothing else in this section that describes how the position will be filled accept in another section of the bylaws that talks about TERMS --> Vacancies in any office may be filled for the balance of the term thereof, by the executive committee.

 

So the way our by-laws are currently written do they take precedence over RR (aka. vacant position).

It will ultimately be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but in my opinion, this does not change the answers provided above. I do not think the board can permanently fill a vacancy arising as a result of an incomplete election unless the bylaws specifically provide for this option.

Bylaws always supersede RONR, but that does not change the fact that failing to elect someone does NOT create a vacancy. It just means you failed to complete the election, and must still do so.

A vacancy is created when someone is serving in an office and, before the term ends, vacates that office, by resignation, removal, death, of whatever.

A vacancy exists whenever no one is in an office. An incomplete election may or may not result in a vacancy (depending on such factors as the presence of an "until their successors are elected" clause), but any appointment to fill such a vacancy is effective only until the election can be completed. This may be desirable if, for instance, the membership meets very infrequently and getting a quorum for a special meeting is impractical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...